I understand your point of view. However, inscription represent by far the largest spam attack due to their ability to embed themselves in the witness with a fee reduction.
Unlike other methods, such as using the op_return field which could also be used to spam the chain, the associated fees and the standardization rule limiting op_return to 80 bytes have so far prevented similar abuses. Although attempting to stop inscription could lead to more serious issues, not taking action against these inscription could be interpreted by spammers as tacit acceptance of their practice. This could encourage more similar spam attacks in the future, as spammers might perceive that the Bitcoin network tolerates this kind of behavior. I want to emphasize that my proposal does not involve implementing a soft fork in any way. On the contrary, what I am asking is simply to consider adding a standardization option. This option would allow the community to freely decide whether it should be activated or not. > Le 26 juil. 2023 à 07:30, vju...@gazeta.pl a écrit : > >> and I would like to understand why this problem has not been addressed more >> seriously > > Because if nobody has any good solution, then status quo is preserved. If > tomorrow ECDSA would be broken, the default state of the network would be > "just do nothing", and every solution would be backward-compatible with that > approach. Burn old coins, and people will call it "Tether", redistribute > them, and people will call it "BSV". Leave everything untouched, and the > network will split into N parts, and then you pick the strongest chain to > decide, what should be done. > >> However, when it comes to inscriptions, there are no available options >> except for a patch produced by Luke Dashjr. > > Because the real solution should address some different problem, that was > always there, and nobody knows, how to deal with it: the problem of > forever-growing initial blockchain download time, and forever-growing UTXO > set. Some changes with "assume UTXO" are trying to address just that, but > this code is not yet completed. > >> So, I wonder why there are no options to reject inscriptions in the mempool >> of a node. > > Because it will lead you to never ending chase. You will block one > inscriptions, and different ones will be created. Now, they are present even > on chains, where there is no Taproot, or even Segwit. That means, if you try > to kill them, then they will be replaced by N regular indistinguishable > transactions, and then you will go back to those more serious problems under > the hood: IBD time, and UTXO size. > >> Inscriptions are primarily used to sell NFTs or Tokens, concepts that the >> Bitcoin community has consistently rejected. > > The community also rejected things like sidechains, and they are still > present, just in a more centralized form. There are some unstoppable > concepts, for example soft-forks. You cannot stop a soft-fork. What > inscription creators did, is just non-enforced soft-fork. They believe their > rules are followed to the letter, but this is not the case, as you can create > a valid Bitcoin transaction, that will be some invalid Ordinals transaction > (because their additional rules are not enforced by miners and nodes). > > > _______________________________________________ bitcoin-dev mailing list bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
